User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 56

May
I have a FAC open, one of Monteverdi's exceptional works, in memory of Brian who passed me his collected sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool. SilkTork (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed that someone just added an infobox on Laurence Olivier, please watch. It's in the wrong position, so I bet its someone who has little idea. Let's see how politely they will be treated. I have better things to do - my first instinct was to revert it myself to avoid further troubles - on a feast day with nice weather ;) - Did you know how many times the last IP was reverted, and three named editors? (I saw that on Cassianto's talk.) What a waste of time. - The FAC is progressing nicely, only I found a new source I'm so tempted to use ... - never finished, these tasks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * DYK ... that on Good Friday 2020, Benedikt Kristjánsson sang all roles in a chamber arrangement of Bach's St John Passion, broadcast live from the composer's burial place? - listen --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Goodness me. For someone who “never talks about IBs”, you seem to spend a lot of time talking about them! The one on the Mitchell page was (aside from being hideous) in breach of several of the guidelines. And an admin decided to edit war rather than open a talk page thread to start? Of course. - SchroCat (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's par the course, unfortunately; who thinks the rules don't apply to them and who (not specific to this case...yet) when taken via the proper channels For disruption, get looked after by their equally corrupt mates.   Cassianto Talk  20:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know how edit notices appear for you (two). For me, while in some past an edit notice stayed until I acted, it now comes up briefly - for me not long enough to read more than three words - and then I am right in the edit window. I imagine that a new user will not even know that they could find it scrolling up. Any expectations in the impact of such a notice may be disappointing, and instead of, pointing out that an edit doesn't follow guidelines, and should be discussed on the article talk, might be more promising. - Thank you for good points in the FAC, Cassianto. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have tried on four different browsers and on a tablet and phone, and no matter which system I use, the big warning message appears on top of the edit box. Despite your claim, I did not blame the individual for anything; when I reverted I gave the two reasons for reverting: "Per the talk page consensus and the flipping great big box right above the edit box". If you can read blame in that, then your interpretation is wildly wrong. As to the talk page, they are not a new user, and have been educated about BRD before (they've even been blocked for ignoring it). You may have done it differently, but then again, you seem to think I have blamed them for something. I'd rather not continue another pointless circular discussion about IBs, I only thought I'd point out that you claiming "I never talk about IBs" seems to be oft-repeated and never, ever adhered to, either in the letter or the spirit. - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for me saying "I never talk about infoboxes."? Because I remember only saying that when reverted I don't bother to talk (but go away). I try to avoid the word "never" because few things have no exception. If I used it I apologise. I apologise also for using the word "blame" wrongly, - what I meant to say was that I (Firefox user) see any edit notice only for less than a second, and could not read it, not even the header, in that short time, and perhaps the same happens to others. Which word could I use? Asking my technical expert for the behaviour of the browser: could I change my settings to see the edit notice for longer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's possible that some addons or maybe even preferences can move the focus on editing so that the top part of the screen scrolls up and hides the edit notice. I can't duplicate the behaviour, though, for a non-logged-in editor on any browser or skin. Consequently, a new editor like Ganymede94 is very unlikely to have managed to find preferences that did that, although I can't say it's impossible. I can say that they have no custom JavaScript (addons) installed, though. Sorry I can't cast any more light on it. --RexxS (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried a few now, and in last minute and for this page, when I edit the full page, the edit notice stays, and when I say new section, It comes and goes as described above. Could it have to do with me having "Special characters" open all the time? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think "Special characters" causes the problem, but it makes it worse by increasing the effective size of the edit box and moving any page notice even higher. I can't understand how you're getting a "new section", though, as it's not a normal function for an article (only for talk pages). Perhaps you have a gadget that does that for you, and perhaps that's the culprit? --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I wasn't clear about meaning User talk:SilkTork by "this page". When I edit Laurence Olivier, or Cary Grant, the big box, or small box, pops up, and then I'm in the edit window, top line "Latin" from the special chars. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you and objected to my removal of your comment, please voluntarily remove or strike it, as it is untrue and defamatory. Mike Peel (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think I'm wrong and that the rules do apply to you to, why did you edit war an infobox on to Ann Katharine Mitchell?  Cassianto Talk  15:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One edit by myself followed by me starting a talk page discussion was an edit war? Mike Peel (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2020 (
 * This is your edit, which came just after the revert by ? That does not follow WP:BRD. That is edit warring.   Cassianto Talk  15:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Again, please strike your defamatory comment above. Mike Peel (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact you disagree doesn't make you right. I think the diff speaks for itself. Good day.   Cassianto Talk  16:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact you disagree doesn't make you right. I think the diff speaks for itself. Good day.   Cassianto Talk  16:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Dmitri Smirnov
Today on the Main page, Dmitri Smirnov, a composer who died of a COVID-19 infection, and who had written great music, both in Russia and the UK. To honour him, I wrote about one of the pieces, the Triple Concerto No. 2 (Smirnov). For this composer, and many others, adding an infobox was no problem. Looking just at 2020, I think we can happily say that there was no serious infobox battle. Only two infoboxes that I added to articles to which I contributed were reverted (Krzysztof Penderecki, Charles Wuorinen), and I walked away. A few infoboxes which others had added were reverted, but also without a major battle. Could we please call the so-called infobox wars a thing of the past, and consider talking about infoboxes as normal, not offensive? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither I nor, I think, the Wikipedia community in general have a problem with infoboxes - it's the disruptive disagreements about their use which are of concern. I would have no problem with them being used on every article, nor with them not being used on every article. I find them neither particularly useful nor particularly offensive, rather like the links on the bottom of each page. If such links started appearing and disappearing, and then moving around on the page, changing colour, changing the order, being put into a box, removed from a box, etc, the community would start asking questions about what was going on and would ask that those responsible for such disruption to stop doing it or to be sanctioned. SilkTork (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I may look at different areas of Wikipedia, because I don't observe many "disruptive disagreements". Or is this one? (continued on the 3RR noticeboard, and certainly something I'll not take part in) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see them at all because I don't look for them, but they are brought to my attention now and again, and occasionally people will debate over them on my talkpage. I'm not entirely sure why, because, as I say, I have no particular interest in infoboxes, I am no longer in ArbCom, and I rarely these days get involved in dispute resolution. SilkTork (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a talent for dispute resolution, that may be why. In said incident, if all had behaved per my New Year's resolutions (to stay on my talk: 1RR, max two comments per discussion, adding an infobox should not be treated as vandalism), this would not have happened, or at least been much shorter. Geo Swan, when you see a featured article (FA, with a little star in the upper right corner) without an infobox, there is a reason. You waste less time (not only yours but those of fellow editors) by not even thinking to change the status. If you can't resist the thought, and see the hidden notice not to add an infobox, withdraw. If you are still on some mission, add one but unwatch the article. If you keep watching and see it reverted, best ignore. If you can't ignore, begin a talk page discussion. Back to the beginning ;) - (Same is true for normal articles, of course, but the more FA, the longer the discussion.) - Drmies, you should have marked ;) - Seriously: what you describe is history or myth. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am largely burned out at the moment as regards dispute resolution. That is not to say I will ignore all requests for assistance, but I am not looking to help out. I like you coming here with season's greetings, and to keep me in touch with what you are doing on Wikipedia, but I would rather you didn't try to involve me in infobox stuff. SilkTork (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Last question then: Do you think the above advice to someone who still thinks about adding an infobox to a FA might work? Thank you for the tea, and I only returned because I saw the rare and very welcome Geometry guy entry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , you pinged me here, so I am responding here.
 * My conclusions, after first encountering the unsigned, undated and unexplained comment at the top of the Harriet Arbuthnot article...
 * I still believe any request like that absolutely must be signed, dated and explained. It should probably reflect a genuine discussion, either at that article's talk page, or a more central fora.
 * The only people who have a concern over adding infoboxen to BLP are FA proponents. It might seem like a top issue to FA proponents, but to people who don't routinely work on featured articles, this issue is unknown.  The vast bulk of the WMF community seems to accept that adding infoboxen to BLP is unquestionably a good thing.  So, everyone who treated me like a vandal was, IMO, way out of line.
 * WRT the Harriet Arbuthnot article, it seems to me the only justifications offered for not putting in a standard infobox all boiled down to "FA proponents don't like infoboxes,", not a specific reason as to why infobox shouldn't have been added to that article.
 * I was unaware of WP:FAOWN, an exception and contradiction to plain old WP:OWN. I've wrote a user essay on the the dangers of the supervolunteer, the volunteer who does more than their share, and starts to think this extra effort entitles them to special consideration.  I know, from experience, supervolunteers can torpedo organizations that rely on volunteer effort.  So, should I be concerned that the whole WP:FAOWN initiative was a bad idea?  Geo Swan (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, Gerda, as I have said, I would rather you didn't try to involve me in infobox stuff, so I will not be responding to any queries or questions regarding infoboxes. I suggest you find someone else to discuss this matter with. SilkTork (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Even before seeing this, I moved the advice/warning to the project talk. Feel free to delete here anything you don't want to see any longer. It was a language question (my last advice was misunderstood, I wanted to make sure this was clearer)) rather than an infobox question, but nevermind. Going outside ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Even more belated congratulations...
... on your RfB - good to hear the Wikipedia bureaucracy is in such good hands. And of course hi and thanks for all the tea. Geometry guy 21:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I miss you Guy. Stay around a bit and do some GA reviews. SilkTork (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks - GA seems to be doing pretty well in my absence. Having a backlog drive during a lockdown was inspired! Geometry guy 21:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Talk page info
Template:Talk page info has been nominated for merging with Template:Banner holder. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Me
This was quite a scarifying assessment for someone of my vintage to read about themselves. I shared it with my nearest and dearest and sadly they all agreed with you in every detail. It's a good job it's all true and I'm impervious to criticism otherwise I'd be out looking for a bus to jump under. The subject of my report has generously offered to resume his mentoring role but I suspect it's out of pity and with a heavy heart. May I ask if you would give up a little of your time to help me change my spots - I'd really appreciate knowing how to avoid landing in this pothole again. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The poll will likely finish with a consensus to ban you from editing Wikipedia. The ban would be on you not just on your account - an unfortunate side effect of that would be that anyone in your household would also be prevented from editing Wikipedia because our software would block your IP address. However, the usual thing with a ban is that you would be allowed to appeal after six months, and every six months thereafter, so the ban wouldn't necessarily be forever. I have suggested that you be allowed to make an appeal after one week instead of the usual six months. It would be up to whoever closes the poll to decide to allow that; but given that the suggestion has some support, and you haven't done anything egregious, I would expect that it would be allowed. The subject of mentoring could be brought up by yourself at your appeal. User:Snowded has offered to be your mentor, and is an experienced editor with a lot of knowledge, and you two seem to have real life interests and experiences in common (you both went to grammar school, for example), so if you feel mentoring would be helpful then Snowded is the most appropriate user for that. And Snowded would be able to advise you on how to approach your appeal. My own advice on that would be to fully take on board that you did something wrong here. At the moment you're probably thinking that you have been misunderstood. It is the hardest thing to accept that you were in the wrong - I know because I did something wrong many years ago, and it took me a long time before I realised that I had been wrong. I was thinking that I had been misunderstood - that what I did was right, and that it was just that people got the wrong impression. (See here: Requests for adminship/SilkTork). If you can work out yourself what you did wrong, that would be great. But if not, I can give you pointers. It might help if you consider that every person here is a volunteer giving freely of their time and effort, that our aim is to create a reliable and trustworthy encyclopedia, and that the time and energy and motivation of these volunteers to create that reliable and trustworthy encyclopedia can be taken away in needless repetitive arguments. Ask not what Wikipedia can do for you - ask what you can do for Wikipedia. Be aware that Wikipedia does not need any one editor - Wikipedia gets thousands and thousands of edits every hour of every day: Special:RecentChanges, people adding or removing snippets of information. There are users who monitor these edits and will quickly remove inappropriate or harmful edits, or question dubious edits. Other users will take an article and work on it for months, even years to bring it to a respectable and reliable state. And all of this work is disrupted when people edit war and argue about minor edits. We can cope with the random drive by vandal much better than we can a well meaning editor who stays here and argues about minor edits for days and days. That's not to say we don't welcome discussion and  disagreement. We very much do. Indeed, there are more words written on Wikipedia in discussions than there are on the articles themselves. But the best and most productive discussions are polite and collegial and follow agreed structures. Comment on the content not the contributor, and assume good faith are two important principles that underpin editing discussions. I love this community and the guidelines the community have developed over the years for how to conduct ourselves while creating this encyclopedia. I hope that you will reflect on this incident, make a successful appeal, and come back in a week or twos time and join in and discover what a rewarding experience it is to be part of this community. SilkTork (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

July
We have a featured topic to review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: Monteverdi's operas are now a featured topic! ... exactly 10 years after both Brian and I were declared awesome ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Well done Gerda. SilkTork (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Brian, of course, did most of the work, writing all the articles, next much Aza24 who had the idea. Preview: the list will appear on the Main Page 21 Aug, and the composer's vespers are requested for 1 Sep, - the article for which Brian passed me the sources he had collected. The was mentioned recently, but - as Voce said on his talk: "He was without a doubt the finest editor that Wikipedia has seen." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Watford Colloseum
Hi - Thanks for your excellent work on the Watford article some years back. It seems to me that there is enough material on the Watford Colosseum to justify a separate article to encourage expansion. Are you OK if I do that? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is quite enough information there at the moment to justify a split right now. However, I do think it has enough notability. The appropriate procedure would be to build on Watford until you have, say, twice what is there at the moment, then split it off to a new article, leaving behind a summary of about half the size that is there now, which would likely be about the same size and content of the lead of the new article you'd create. I'd be happy to help out - and to help tidy up the Watford article, which looks a bit messy and cluttered at the moment, and with an inadequate lead section. SilkTork (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for that. I will give it thought. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi - I have added some more material to the Watford section of the Watford article. Hopefully there is enough there to split it out now. I agree that the Watford article is a bit of a mess especially the Freedom of the Borough section: personally, I would be bold and delete all but the notable ones (i.e. blue-lined ones). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have condensed the Freedom of the Borough information and moved it to the appropriate Governance section alongside the twinning information. Such matters have little relevance outside of the local authority. I think we're close to splitting out the Colosseum - however, I'd like to see a little bit more history of the place first - the artists who have played there, and a bit more on the snooker competition played there. SilkTork (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ooops! I missed that the sub-section now has its own two sections - I was only looking at the first section. Yes, of course. It's now ready to split. Well done! SilkTork (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Great. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Very many thanks for the Golden wiki. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Restore talk page of deleted article?
You moved Erica C. Barnett to the draft namespace in 2019 but I can't find what happened to the old talk page. Is it possible to merge the old talk page back into the new Talk:Erica C. Barnett? also moved it -- from Draft:Erica C. Barnett. to Draft:Erica C. Barnett due to an extraneous period. Not sure who could resurrect the page but it would save a lot of time if the past discussions were available if not on talk then in the talk archive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , oh good grief, that festering dreck is back again? Guy (help!) 21:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keeping talk archives around helps us avoid having repeat the same festering dreck once a consensus has been reached. Wipe it from memory and we have to re-fight the exact same battles. I don't relish going over the same ground again either. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The talkpage was deleted last month by User:Fastily: . SilkTork (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I went to their talk page and followed the directions over to Requests_for_undeletion. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I've undeleted per your formal request: Draft talk:Erica C. Barnett. SilkTork (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And now fully restored: Talk:Erica C. Barnett. Any problems, please let me know. SilkTork (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at the article and I'm unclear on why she is now a notable person outside of Seattle. What exactly has changed since the article was deleted? SilkTork (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Shotley Gate
You merged this article years ago and I'm wandering about re creating it via AFC. The problem however is the possibility of content forking due to the overlap since it seems that many readers and sources refer to "Shotley Gate" as part of Shotley village. In favour of splitting it is a separate ONS BUA to Shotley its self. This suggests that even if there is an overlap 2 articles might still be desirable. I would also note that its one of only 4 places in England that before the A-Z Road Atlas showed more built up areas that was shown as a built up area. The others that are missing are Totton, Shaw, Greater Manchester and South Hayling and formerly Ashley Heath, Staffordshire. Those that I have created are Great Waltham, Culgaith, Asfordby Hill, Shareshill, Lingwood, Stratton, Gloucestershire and Harleston, Norfolk. In terms of Totton and Shaw, Greater Manchester the reason there is an overlap with those 2 is that the parishes were original called "Eling" and "Crompton" and then "Totton" and "Shaw" grew up drastically to make the original place a suburb of those places meaning there isn't much independent history but its still possible separate articles could one day exist. In terms of another example there is the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom article and then separate articles were created at COVID-19 pandemic in Scotland, COVID-19 pandemic in Northern Ireland, COVID-19 pandemic in Wales and COVID-19 pandemic in England. The 1st articles didn't have the content forking issue but the England article did simply because a large number of sources treat "England" and "United Kingdom" as the same or a similar thing. The same problem could happen if a "Totton" article existed since many sources refer to them as the same thing. In terms of Shotley Gate I'll draft and article and if you think it should exist I'll submit it but if you don't think it should exist I'll start a split discussion.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If two things are so closely related they are often discussed together and it is likely that there will be duplication of information if they are split then what has to be considered is which would be more helpful for the general reader: to have the information in the same place, or to have it in two different places. We generally consider two things when looking into splitting material into a standalone article: 1) would the article meet our notability criteria (ie - are there sufficient reliable sources talking about the item in depth) 2) is there sufficient information to justify splitting out. Splitting gives good guidance (though I might be biased as it's largely my work). The rule of thumb is that if an article is less than 40 kB then there is no compelling reason to split on size issues. Shotley is 11 kB. So, there is no compelling reason to split because of size. When reading the article, it appears that it contains information about Shotley and Shotley Gate quite comfortably. I can't see any potential for confusion. All the information a reader may want to know is contained there usefully in one place, and those features that require more detail (too much detail for a settlement article, such as HMS Ganges) are split off appropriately. The bulk of the information contained within the Shotley Gate section of Shotley appears to refer more generally to Shotley - and when I did a quick search for "Bloody Point at Shotley" I came upon this newspaper article which talks about Shotley rather than Shotley Gate. I note that it has a photo of Shotley Pier, which is located in Shotley Gate. That the pier is not called Shotley Gate Pier adds to my concern that a split would be unhelpful. SilkTork (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that is the point, both places are very closely related. Many readers and sources do not make a distinction between them meaning a general reader who is looking for information on Shotley isn't going to be aware that the port area is actually "Shotley Gate" and that either there will be information in 2 different places that would be expected in the same place or there's going to be a lot of duplicate content (likely both things) if they are separate. As far as splitting guideline goes I would expect that Shotley Gate probably would meet our notability criteria (but perhaps only just) and indeed there isn't likely a huge amount of information relevant only to Shotley Gate (the pub might be one but perhaps that's because there's another pub in Shotley village). Indeed the newspaper article doesn't mention "Shotley Gate" once at all. In this case I'll leave it for now but if/when I do decide to have a go I'll start a discussion (I actually did tag for splitting back in 2010) for a split and notify you. Interestingly as can be seem from this old map the settlement now called "Shotley" was called "Shotley Street" what was "Shotley" then is now "Church End". I remember having a conversation with someone years ago who knew the area well who told be that the village was originally where the church is but moved because of the plague and they did seem to recon that there is likely information on "Shotley Gate". As a counter example there is Nayland-with-Wissington and the articles at Nayland and Wissington, Suffolk. In that case most people probably do treat then as very distinct even though the parishes were merged and since being defunct legally recognized places clearly meet out notability guidelines.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * When looking into this the other day I noted that people referred to the area as Shotley Peninsula - I just did a Google search and this came up: Shotley Peninsula. Though I suppose you're already aware of that article. SilkTork (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've heard (as opposed to read) people talk about "Shotley Peninsula" but yes I was aware of that article.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you make of Woodbury, East Devon/Woodbury Salterton? in this case it looks like more people are going to think of Salterton as being a separate place since both have a school and church than Shotley/Shotley Gate.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Comma-separated vs. parenthetical disambiguation of article titles
Hello – per WP:COMMADIS and WP:NCDAB, the comma-separated style is generally used for geographic place names, not buildings and other features. Hence I have moved articles such as Central Police Station (Hong Kong) back to their original titles, as this is in line with the style used for other WPHK articles. Kind regards, Citobun (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Citobun, thanks for letting me know what you have done. I am aware that there is variation across countries on implementation of WP:COMMADIS, so to avoid unnecessary dispute, I generally avoid moving non-UK article to comply with WP:COMMADIS; however, I thought Hong Kong editors would follow the UK consensus rather than US. Sorry for making that assumption. SilkTork (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Island House, Laugharne - seeking advice on UK census citations and infobox options
Thank you for your recent edits and continuing interest in my contributions. I'm uneasy about my current reference in the article to UK census returns via a self-created composite image on my archive.org page and obviously don't want to violate any copyrights. The only census template I can find on Wiki seems to be for the US variety which seems ill-suited for our records - can you offer any advice?

Another problem I have with this entry, although a very minor one, has proved intractable in a useful recent discussion with [| another user]. I hoped the set of the coordinates at the top right of the page would suffice and their duplicates in the infobox below the map could be removed and thus the infobox be reduced in size (and consequently be less intrusive on the text below)  but it looks as though if you have that map version  you get the general info line and the cordinates below it by default. Do you perhaps know of a map option that doesn't automatically insert a coordinates line? (I have searched but so far in vain) Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Looking at the situation regarding use of the census returns this comes under use (or misuse) of primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY for the details. I think you are better placed to decide if what you have done is compliant with WP:PRIMARY or not, but if you are unable to make a final decision, ask me again and I'll take a closer look. Was the census information published somewhere? Has an author commented on the census information in a history or guide book?
 * I am not familiar with map coordinates in articles. You could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates or directly to one of the participants: WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Participants. SilkTork (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm confident that census returns can be cited within the WP:PRIMARY constraints. They do say "all sources are primary sources for something" after all. My concern was over the linkage to a self-published source and whether there was a better and more direct way of referencing the specific UK public domain datasets following Wikipedia's existing template for the US census records.
 * I'll follow your suggestions re co-ordinates, thank you for the links.Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're confident Horatius, then you can simply reference the published data with date and publisher. You don't have to link to your self-published source, but if you are able to cite the original source then you can certainly support that with a link to photos of the source - we do that with texts on GoogleBooks (GoogleBooks are not the publisher, they merely provide photographs of the source). But, also make sure you are not making any interpretations. I haven't looked closely, but what I saw in your link was some data figures, and what I see in the article is a sophisticated interpretation of the data: " the property continued to provide a prestigious, 20-room home for well-to-do families". Is that information clearly in the census data, particularly the "prestigious" and "well-to-do"? SilkTork (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm curious - where does "all sources are primary sources for something" come from? I don't see that as part of the wording on our policy page. SilkTork (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My characterization of the Island House occupants as 'prestigious/well-to-do' from the data in the 1881-1911 returns followed on from the 1871 census reference in the Stopp article which I quoted and cited. His analysis there was confirmed by the later entries. WP:ALLPRIMARY is my source for the source observation
 * I am now less sanguine about linking actual census page images as opposed to transcriptions and have removed the link.

Horatius At The Bridge Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just looked at WP:ALLPRIMARY. What do you think WP:ALLPRIMARY is actually saying? Is it saying A) that you can use primary sources in the same way as other sources; or B) That all sources can be primary sources, so be careful how you use a source so you are not using it as a primary source? SilkTork (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the answer to either of your last two questions really helps to address the first. The answer to that is set out in the various sections  that follow and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is the lodestar for me. It would be presumptuous to try to further paraphrase their contents given the care that has clearly been taken to guide users in this difficult area. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Pearl Brewing Company/Images
Talk:Pearl Brewing Company/Images, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Pearl Brewing Company/Images and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Pearl Brewing Company/Images during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

WP Phoenicia
Sorry for the messy template still haven't had the time to clean everything up. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 10:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

August
A first for me today: a featured list (= a featured topic in this case) on the Main page, see Main Page history/2020 August 21, an initiative by Aza24 in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Well done Gerda. Your constant enthusiasm and energy really amazes and impresses me. SilkTork (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - It's easy with fascinating topics, such as Rhythm Is It! - I expanded that stub on my dad's birthday because we saw the film together back then, and were impressed. As a ref said: every educator should see it. Don't miss the trailer, for a starter. - A welcome chance to present yet another article by Brian on the Main page, Le Sacre du printemps. - Next topic that I explored: Franz Leuninger, couldn't believe he had no article in English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Sir I want to create a wikipedia page of Sandeep Maheshwari, Please remove protection from it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sandeep_Maheshwari

This page is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it.

Sir, I want to create a Wikipedia page of Sandeep Maheshwari, Please remove protection from it so that I can create it.

Sandeep Maheshwari is a very popular businessman, motivational speaker & YouTuber.

Sahiljangid227 (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The consensus on the English Wikipedia is that, despite some popularity amongst youngsters in India, Sandeep Maheshwari does not meet the English Wikipedia guidelines for having an article. Essentially, while he is popular, he is not notable. Nobody significant has written about him. Almost everything we can find written about him has been written by Sandeep Maheshwari himself with the intention of promoting himself. As far as I am aware, he does not have an article on any other Wikipedia, including the Indian Wikipedia. And there are no articles on him in Western sources. SilkTork (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)